Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Squonk, Oct 5, 2019.
Isn't that what white supremism wants lol.
It's not from imperialists I hear it but people in NZ from Zimbabwe or South Africa black or white.
SA is a bit different than Zimbabwe, most agreed apartheid had to go. It's what came after.
Zimbabwe was a bit different, wasn't black vs white like SA. Shona got screwed perhaps worse. Matabele were a Zulu offshoot and invaded Shona lands in the 19th century.
Shona were more farmers iirc, Matabele cattle and warriors.
Main difference was after 1980 everyone got screwed, food shortages, hyperinflation, corruption and beating, murders and assegai in head if it got bad enough.
We had a SA teacher at high school pre 1994. He left SA as he hated apartheid. Interesting stories.
This is CFC, we all here like to settle and colonize.
In situations like these I try to remember I'm living on stolen land and exhibit some humility.
In South Africa, the government should redistribute the land to black people (who are overwhelmingly the ones actually working it) without compensation. No white person has a legitimate claim to a square inch of land in South Africa, period.
Huh? 1902 is the end of the Boer wars. The British rule in the other parts of South Africa is much older, since late 18th, early 19th century. And anyway, we are talking about whites in general, so it's about the Dutch too.
I "lump them together" because that's what the ones supporting this do. They want to make a law concerning whites in general, they talk that whites (not "Durch", "Afrikaners" or "British") do not belong to Africa etc. So no, it's not me who is lumping whites as one. I only reply to that, and, at worst, perhaps, against my will, I am influenced by the line of thought I am actually opposing.
And it makes no difference. Even if it was just about the British part of the history, then it would be lumping people together and making them pay for the crimes of their ancestors, especially if the land was taken without compensation.
As I partly said, but perhaps you've missed this, I believe that if a law was broken, then it's a matter of the law to restore the right situation, and even if the thing expired, the state can compensate or return proporty to the descendants of the ones who were mistreated in some way.
If no law or treaty was broken, but there was clear wrongdoing towards specific group of people whose descendents you can name, it's less obvious, but the state can intervene, or some organisation, to give them compensation.
If you can not name specific people who were occupying specific land, and who were expropriated, but not against the then-law and then-treaties than perhaps some partial compensation should be given, but to whom I wonder.
If there is no proof that a specific land was inhabited by some people who were expelled from this land, then there should be no talking of taking away property or giving anyone compensation for this land.
And the case should also depend on if the people who hold the land today are descendants of the wrongdoings, or not. Perhaps. I'm not sure if you can achieve it by law, but it would be good.
What are you talkin about? Direct British rule in South Africa began in the Napoleonic Wars when the British seized the Cape Colony from the Dutch to prevent it from being used by Napoleon.
Allowing them to keep the land is making black South Africans pay because their ancestors were the victims of crimes. Your position is self-incoherent and a transparent rationalization for doing nothing.
No, if you were at all familiar with the history of South Africa you would realize that South African whites lumped themselves together with the many measures that created the racial caste system which still exists in South Africa today. Perhaps ironically, apartheid itself can be understood as an attempt to unify the Dutch and British populations against the native African majority. Saying that "the ones supporting this [land reform]" are the ones lumping the whites together just demonstrates a total lack of historical consciousness here.
White people singled themselves out first; if that had not happened we would not be having this conversation at all.
Depends. As I said, the only completely indigenous (by language) peoples of Western Europe are the Basques, so they could stay. As for Indoeuropeans, I am not good in such early history, but probably to somewhere around the Caspian, then to Africa, then to the seas.
I didn't see it in his post. He actually suggested that everyone would be better off it the local elites were gradually prepared for taking over. And well, that's true.
Not by another land-grab.
Also, one should fix the current problems, not to try to fix the past. If there's a new land-grab occuring, genoicide, cultural genocide, UN should have its own armed foces to stop that. And not depend on the goodwill of USA, Russia etc.
It will never be out of it, if it wants to continue to live in it. There were many countries that were colonised and historically traumatised, even in Europe. And some were doing much much much better than the others. South Korea could be successful, Ireland could, Malaysia could, even some African states are doing much much better than the others. I see it in my country, which has a quasi post-colonial trauma as well,that there are types of people who just still blame Germany and Russia for all the problems. Moreover, they believe that had it not been for the partages or the communism, we'd have been as prosperous as Germany or Switzerland or Belgium. It's simply not the case. We were always, sometimes a bit, sometimes more, more economically backwards. Usually much more backward, exporting mostly slaves (before Christianity), and then wood, rar and, more recently, coal). In the end it the economical and political weakness contributed to our state being divided etc, which (mostly, because f.e. the Prussians built good transport infrastructure) made it even worse. And it's exactly what happened in Africa. Subsaharean Africa isn't poor and not developed just because it was conquered. It was conquered due to being undeveloped and poor, and thus, an easy target, and the foreign conquest (apart from building economical, transport, political etc infrostructure, of course in its own interest) contributed even more to the poverty I guess. There used to be great African civilisations, like Ethiopia or Mali, but they are far from being representative. So blaming the colonialism for all the problems is not quite good. It's understandable psychologically and convenient, but not quite true. And even if it was - no difference. It won't solve anything. This is what I am saying in the case of my own country, and I am saying it in this case too.
Virtually any conquest means land theft. Everyone is living on a stolen land, from some previous culture, and even if this culture is the oldest one, it's stolen it from local animals and plants. And no, humility doesn't mean obediently allowing yourself to be stripped of all your property.
WHY doesn't any white person have a legitimate claim? There were areas that weren't settled before some white people appeared there. There are whites who bought their land from someone else, and didn't participate in mistreating the previous population. Perhaps some of them even bought their land from some black people - so, in this case, don't they have a claim too?
What you say is extremly racist. And you do not provide any rationale for it. Just some few dogmas. That you don't want to discuss ("period.")
Africa is not "for black people". If you agree with "(Subsaharean) Africa is for black people", you give an excuse for "Europe is for whites", "Germany is for Germans" etc. Both on the intellectual level, and on the practical one, because outrageousness of your claim will make people see less fault in the extreme right wing among whites.
By the way, the Bantu also stole land from the pre-Bantu Khoisan... do you think the Bantu lands in former Khoisan areas should be returned to their rightful owners as well? And if not - why not?
Exactly. I guess you didn't bother to read what I wrote, and what I was replying to. You see, he said that the British souvereignity in South Africa is 117 years old, and it's increasing ("as I'm typing it" oslt), so he means the time when the British captured South Africa. Now it's 2019, and he said 117 years, so he says it started in 1902. Which is the end of the Boer wars. And this is why I was writing what I wrote. Because he forgot about the thing you mentioned to me now - I didn't forget it, I mentioned it myself.
The crime of taking the land was not commited by the current whites, but by ANCESTORS of SOME of them. Not all. And it was done as a crime against the ANCESTORS of SOME of the black population.
I already discussed this, but I'll be patient and repeat:
1) One should not be punished for the crimes of his ancestors
2) Not all whites owning land currently are descendants of the whites who took the land
3) Not all blacks living in RSA are descendants of the people who were robbed of their land
4) Not all land was robbed
If (some) whites did something not right, does it allow you to do the same, also: to all of them, also to their descendants? Why?
No but it does mean chilling out when people are using the word "colonizer" on the internet.
White people's claims can be traced back in all cases to theft, enslavement, genocide. Those claims are not legitimate. And before you go "aha, but all private property is like that" you should know I'm not really a fan of private property in general.
So black people should accept owning 20% of the land in a country where they make up 90% of the population because....it is okay to be punished because your ancestors were victims of crimes? Is that what you're saying?
Again, it is the people working the land who should own it, regardless of race. In South Africa, most white landowners are not poor enough to work their land themselves and employ black workers to do it. My position is that the people who actually occupy and work the land should own it, regardless of race. But in practice that will in almost all cases mean redistributing land from white absentee landowners to black tenant workers.
What's just amazing is that most people here assume that "no WHITE person has a claim to land in South Africa," "it was all stolen by the WHITE people," "the crimes of the WHITE people must be redressed," and by default, the BANTU become the beneficiaries. But why? This is NOT a "standard" colonial case, where those pushing for redress are the innocent victims of "colonial conquest" from the start, and it was only WHITES taking land. Have you ever heard of the Khoikhoi. An African ethnicity who are NOT Bantu, related to the San and the Namaqua, and possibly (given certain genetic tracers and their obviously genetically-inherited diminutive stature - I won't use the old "py-word") to the Twa of farther north rainforests. THEY are indigenous peoples of South Africa, and THEY are the true victims, not just of the Boers and British, BUT ALSO of the Bantu, who invaded from the north at ABOUT THE SAME TIME the Boers were invading - just from a different direction. Both the Boers and the Bantu were invaders - again, starting at about roughly the same time - and they both seized - brutally, aggressively, genocidally at points, and, by moderns reckoning, ILLEGALLY, the Khoikhoi lands. So, it comes down to this. It is NOT as simplistic as the WHITES owe the BLACKS land - it is not purely racial. The Boer, Anglo-South Africans, AND Bantu all owe the Khoikhoi land. However, given, in modern South Africa (a legacy of this horrid two-way pincer of conquest) Khoikhoi today are a very small minority - it would mean setting up a situation where an even smaller minority controlled an even bigger percentage of land. But that is what TRUE and ACCURATELY ACCOUNTED justice would demand.
I keep saying the people who work the land should own the land, without regard to race, but I have no doubt I will be accused of "making everything about race" in a few posts.
And what is your alternative solution to ensure that people believe the SA state is acting in their interests, and not simply in the interests of property owners who, not by coincidence, look just like the previous racial overclass?
Well, my point is, although maybe not so much to you, is that in Africa, politics and society are not "racially" based, they're based on more fine-toothed divisions. A lot of people here seem to be trying to apply simplistic American-style "race politics" where it doesn't belong, and isn't how the people on the ground exactly view things.
You're asking for a just and fair government, but one that, despite labels, will still use Mugabe-style land distribution based on arbitrary and highly flawed views of "justice." And, again, your asking for a solution to this problem "in a void," but the several times I've brought up connected you've basically said, "that's another problem entirely, now where's your solution to the one at hand." You'll have to forgive me for my lack of Messianic-calibre problem solving powers. It's not like any of your solutions are realistic or take the REAL situation of what happened and why into full account.
And how realistic is it that people will lose patience, rightly or wrongly, with the status quo if it looks like a con is being run?
The unrealistic attitude is to do nothing and hope it gets better on its own!
Well, look how long they've been strung along in the United States.
1. Which is when South Africa was established under the rule of the Empire (though technically 1910 I guess, or 1934, depending on any particular meaning people want to apply to a governed state). The British rule prior to that was a) concerned with keeping trade options open and b) primarily focused on other colonial settlements (like the Dutch). Note: not in any way an excuse of their actions during this time.
2. I don't care about you claiming it makes no difference. You made an incorrect claim about how far in the past something occurred in order to diminish its relative importance to today. Your literaly argument was "it was centuries ago". It wasn't. Your reasoning was incorrect.
3. The law is primarily concerned with maintaining the established powers of the land. Would the British ever have created laws that didn't benefit their presence? One of their first acts after beating the Dutch was to outlaw the Dutch language! Your focus on the law, when the law was a) not observed by those conquering, and b) established by the conquerors following their historical successes, is incredibly flawed. You seem to be of the opinion that "the law" (without actually naming a law or the time period in which it was relevant) is some kind of absolute being.
Like I said. A lot of this happened little more than a century ago. It's really not difficult to track back British ancestory that far. You seem to think it's this huge, unknowable problem. If it was centuries ago, with little reliable historical record, you'd have a point (in terms of correctly identifying descendants). But this isn't the case.
You know, Patine, if you can't work out why a bunch of dudes with firearms shooting the heck out of people without said firearms, followed by either enslaving the local population or importing other slaves (from China, apparently, at least in some areas) is a different power dynamic to the relations between states who lacked this form of weaponry, maybe just admit you're not the expert you opine to be on the topic
Likewise for your declarations about the Bantu. Do you mean the Zulu? The Xhosa? You could do with being more specific consider how old Bantu culture is, and how pervasive it was throughout Africa by the 1500s, nevermind later on. Context is key. This is like rationalising the savagery and destruction of the Spanish in South America because the indigenous people there didn't always get along. At least they came from the same bloomin' landmass! The Spanish didn't! The British didn't!
There's a huge difference between an invasion (culturally and logistically) separated by sea (and in some cases, literal tectonic plates) and internecine warfare amount states within a particular cultural group or bounded landmass. To take an example people might feel pressured to defend less (why people are defending European expansions into Africa by saying "look other African nations were this bad!" aside), look at the difference between the kingdoms of Ancient Egypt and subsequent invasions by the Romans (or even the Greek / Macedon, arguably).
PS: just to get a headstart, if you do in fact mean the Zulu reign, the British also subjugated them and broke apart their kingdom. Prior to the settling of the Second Boer War that lead to the union of South Africa.
"genocide is ok if you use sticks and stones and if you are not that far away from your victims"
Are you okay Sir?
This is all just a fancy way of saying, "when White people conquer, it's bad. When non-White people conquer each other, it's not the same at all, and is somehow more forgivable and understandable. Because only White violence, war and conquest, or can possibly be, bad." This is the height of non-thinking and defaulting to the simplistic, racially-based clichés and tropes. In different subject matter and on different issues, Nazis, Aryan Brotherhood, and KKK types have similar simplistic thinking by strict racial divisions of blame and victimization in such broad strokes. The specifics may be different, but the root mentality that leads to it is the SAME.
Separate names with a comma.